Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Qur’an, published in 1764. (courtesy of the Library of Congress). Image via 15-Minute History at the University of Texas at Austin.
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) joined in the calls to end plans for any worship center for Islam near the site of the destroyed World Trade Center. But they added a twist.
CFI called for the entire area to be free from religious institutions, since, they say, it was religiously-inspired violence that caused the trouble. Greg Laden has pithy comments at his blog, as does DuWayne Brayton from the opposite tack (Laden agrees with CFI, sorta, while Brayton thinks they’ve jumped somebody’s shark).
And Glenn Beck in ignorance leads us farther and further from the intentions of the “founders”:
- “ . . . to bigotry, no sanction . . .” (George Washington)
- ” . . . they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.” (Thomas Jefferson)
Also at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub:
- Statement from the National Council of Churches’ Michael Kinnamon (a Disciple of Christ, by the way)
- “Hallowed Ground: Why other nations think we’re nuts”
- “Cat and Mosque at Dogboy and Mr. Dan”
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
Lower says, >>>”Good news today that Pastor Terry Jones and his congregation decided not to burn the Quran.
So…anyone here going to speak out against the 100 plus death threats that he’s received for wanting to exercise his constitutional rights?”<<<
Count me in. I hate this sort of crap. The man was dead wrong, a media-whore and has a very checkered past. (To say nothing of his tortured theology.)
But two wrongs doesn't make a right. I say the same about the odious Fred Phelps. I hate the message of hate that spews forth from him…but to threaten his life or safety is beyond the pale and inexcusable.
Same goes for the guy in Gainesville.
And yes…it IS his constitutional right to burn anything he wishes — the American flag, the Qu'ran, the Bible or his collection of "Jim Nabors sings Gospel favorites" records.
All bets on his rights are off, however, if…
1. He fails to observe local ordinances and regulations regarding open burning.
2. The actual burning becomes a danger to the safety or health of those in attendance or those nearby.
3. The items being burned were acquired illegally.
I am still curious to know where and how the "minister" obtained these copies of the Qu'ran. I would guess he and his disciples have probably stolen them from libraries, hotel rooms and book stores. Because they only other way to obtain them, unless I am missing something, would be to purchase them. In which case, the Christians just put money in the pockets of publishers who do business with Muslims. Seems a tad self-defeating.
LikeLike
But its time for a little review of the facts with regards to the mosque situation
You mean a repeated, rehashed, highly irrelevant review of subjective “facts” you’ve cherry-picked.
If you and your ilk want to **** in your pants and surrender so you can give the terrorists what they want…that because of their attack we are scared enough to fundamentally change the way we live, that we are willing to throw out our ideals and that we agree with them that this is a war against the entirety of Islam…
This shows signs of being the now thoroughly discredited “recruiting tool” argument. No, scratch that — it is the “recruiting tool” argument.
Like all intelligent beings, I have grown weary of this a long time ago. It just doesn’t work. If doing A is a recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists, in order for this to become a logical argument for doing !A, someone needs to come along with some compelling evidence that doing !A will stop terrorists from being recruited. My patience is pretty well run out on this, Nick, because you’ve had ample opportunity to present such evidence and all you do is say the same thing over and over again: We gotta do it your way or the terrorists have won, and they’ll be able to recruit more terrorists.
You can just as easily use this on anything. Gotta bring ice cream home tonight or the terrorists will have won. Gotta buy Meghan McCain’s new book or the terrorists will have won. Gotta make it fashionable for men to wear skirts or the terrorists will have won. Oh my left nut is itching, gotta scratch it or the terrorists will have won.
There is a name for this: Appeasement.
If you had a car that worked as often as appeasement has worked, you’d junk the thing.
Meeting an enemy’s demands doesn’t make him a friend.
Of course, maybe you don’t buy into that, maybe you believe something else. So tell me Nick: What’s the last story of outreach you’ve extended to a conservative Republican? You should remain true to your principles, after all.
LikeLike
No, Lower, he should have not gotten death threats. But then the muslims putting up that mosque in New York shouldn’t be getting threatened either.
But its time for a little review of the facts with regards to the mosque situation:
1: Its blocks away from the WTC site, you can’t see one from the other.
2: the proposed mosque…though actually that’s only a small part of it, has been in the planning stages and working through the process for the last year. With nary a fuss about it until just the last two months. In fact some of the same people objecting to it now were the same people praising it a year ago.
3: the leader of the mosque is a moderate Muslim who denounced the 9-11 attacks and has worked for both the George W Bush and the Barack Obama state departments.
4: Before you say that he said that the United States held some responsibility for the 9-11 attacks..so did Glenn Beck, and a few others. That’s not blaming the United States, its acknowledging that we haven’t exactly had a blameless record in the Middle East.
5: There’s two other mosques also within blocks of the WTC site.
6: There is already a mosque in the building that already sits on the sit that you two and so many others are objecting to. It’s been there for a couple years.
7: This anti-New York mosque hysteria has ginned up fear and hatred of muslims and caused protests against mosques in other parts of the country. It’s also caused some violence against muslims. Sorry, deny that if you want but that’s the truth. When you give a forum to the crazies in which they can justify their violent tendencies by saying “See…I’m not alone.” you have to bear some of the responsibility.
8: Muslims died in the WTC attack too..and I’m not talking about the terrorists. The resturant “Windows on the World” in the north tower, for example, employed several muslims as workers.
9: This whole “controversy” is nothing more then blown smoke by the right wing…just like they ginned up controversy’s about the “new black panthers”, just like they ginned up controversy about “Obama was going to brainwash our kids in the schools” and so on. It’s another example of how craven and morally depraved the right wing has become in their quest to gain power. If it wasn’t two months before the midterms noone outside of new york would have ever heard about this mosque.
10: There two mosques in the WTC by no later then 1999. One was in the south tower and the other was in the north tower. Gee…wonder why two mosques were there if, as Morgan contends, there were no muslims working in the WTC buildings and therefor those who were in the buildings when the planes struck would have likely died. Or, Morgan, are you going to contend that there was a conspiracy of world wide proportions by the muslims of the world so that they knew not to go to work that day? Just like some of the idiotic truthers say that about the jews being warned to not go to the WTC buildings that day?
11: As for the claim that the terrorists will claim that any mosque built near the WTC site will be a “victory” again I remind you there are already three mosques near the WTC site, one of which is on the site of the proposed mosque that you two and others are objecting too. And I think the terrorists would be more likely to claim the attack itself was a “victory for Islam.” And its not like the terrorist would go “Well we were going to claim that a mosque built three blocks from the WTC site is a victory but since they moved it six blocks away, damn it, we just can’t do it.”
12: There’s going to be more then a mosque in the proposed building. THere will also be areas for the community, a culinary school and oh yes..worship space set aside for Christians, Jews and others. The mosque is really just a small part of the project.
13: The leaders of the project have said that the financing of the building will be transparent in order to ensure that no outside militant muslims fund it.
Which is more then can be said about Fox News’ parent company which has as its second biggest investor a Saudi Prince…who, along with his family, funds quite a lot of militant muslim groups.
14: There is really nothing that those objecting to the project can do. Sure they can protest it but that’s not likely to do anything. They have no legal means to stop it. As long as the project meets all legal requirements for it to be built, the New York city council has no alternative but to approve the project. Unless the New York city council is willing to walk itself into a multimillion dollar lawsuit that it doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning. And somehow I doubt you, Morgan or you Lower, or all the rest of your ilk are willing to pay New York’s legal costs in such an event.
And as for “the majority of Americans oppose it” well…that doesn’t prove that they’re right. Those who live by the majority….die by the majority.
Your side has been nothing but a bunch of dickless and brainless wonders. If your side had any brains your side would have tried working with the people behind that project quietly in order to see if a compromise could be arranged. But no…just couldn’t help yourselves but go for straight for the hate, the fear and the nonsense bullshit.
If you and your ilk want to **** in your pants and surrender so you can give the terrorists what they want…that because of their attack we are scared enough to fundamentally change the way we live, that we are willing to throw out our ideals and that we agree with them that this is a war against the entirety of Islam I would very much appreciate it if all of you went to Afghanistan and Pakistan, surrender to the terrorists in person and kindly quit trying to compel the rest of us to partake in your cowardice.
LikeLike
Good news today that Pastor Terry Jones and his congregation decided not to burn the Quran.
So…anyone here going to speak out against the 100 plus death threats that he’s received for wanting to exercise his constitutional rights?
msnbc.msn.com/id/39113743/ns/us_news-security
LikeLike
One other thing to add to this right-wing-conspiracy angle:
Imam Rauf is out there now saying Let Us Build It Or Else. In my view, this pretty much proves his game is one of intimidation and coercion, not of bridge-building or friendship. Contrasted with that, when I first heard about him, I wasn’t sure…uncertainty is an attribute intrinsic to the state of just-found-out-about-something.
So I learn more, and the situation becomes more suspicious to me. That’s a perfectly rational explanation as to why, as an intelligent individual comes to learn more facts, he arrives at more opinions — that is the way the process is supposed to work. I think I already quoted Keynes, “when the facts change, I change my opinions, what do YOU do sir?”
It saddens me to see LL come around to my way of thinking about you, Nick. I wanted to see if that would bear fruit or not. But my opinion about you, I think, was the more logical one. You vent your frustration and outrage, and your conviction that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a dick…and that we’re all going to make the weird-beards mad at us, as if they aren’t already. Then, you go back and do it again. And again.
You’re not a hard guy to pin down. When you don’t get the response you want, you start calling people names and laying out the guilt trips. When it doesn’t work you get extra frustrated, and try it again. Obviously you don’t have anything else. And, equally obviously, this has been working for you for a very long time. Probably since you were old enough to walk.
I saw a momma in a pizza parlor today raising a couple more just like you. A boy and a girl, about three. She’d say “come on over here, get away from there” and they’d just ignore her. Then it was time for the “don’t make me come get you”…then they’d make her come get them. No consequences for this whatsoever. Of course, they were just running around doing whatever they wanted, not trying to argue with anybody about mosques. So they aren’t nearly as angry and frustrated as you are. YET.
I wish parents nowadays did a better job with people like you.
LikeLike
Nic said, “Didn’t attempt to sit down quietly with the muslims wanting to build that place, didn’t try and work out a deal.”
That’s exactly what your Archbishop tried to do, and I supported him, and yet you call him (all on my side) a “dick” and acting like a “bigot.” Again, I think he deserves an apology from you.
News stories are funny things – when more people find out about it and people are upset about it, the more of a news story it becomes. Never went to journalism school, but it would make an interesting discussion to find out what goes into deciding what is considered “newsworthy” and what is not. A few months ago people didn’t know about the mosque so they weren’t upset about it – the news (for whatever reason – not a conspiracy, just a good news story) got out there and it made people really upset. End of right wing conspiracy theory. Did CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC ever run the story – or is it just the right leaning Fox that ever talked about it? Hmmm…maybe it just qualifies as…news and gets good ratings.
From one pawn to another, I think I’m about done with this discussion. You seem ready to rehash everything all over again, and I find that counterproductive of my time. Thanks for the spirited discussion. It’s all moot anyway until they raise the money to build the thing, but I think it’s about time to put my exit strategy plan into effect.
Looking forward to hearing your defence of Westboro and the burning of the Quran for entire argument to hold a feather’s worth of weight beyond the evidence of your continually crass speech.
LikeLike
Your whole side is a big giant colossal group of dicks. Didn’t attempt to sit down quietly with the muslims wanting to build that place, didn’t try and work out a deal.
That would be silly, I don’t have any such authority. I’m not representing anyone but myself. And I think I know at least as well as you do, when someone’s being a dick.
So you two little ones can play the innocent victims all you want but you’re not. They have the right to build that building, deal with it.
Oh, so you’re in favor of the Quoran burning festival taking place this weekend. What a dick.
LikeLike
And the ultimate proof that you two are being dicks, Morgan, is the fact that there has been a operating mosque in the building that is currently on the site for the last two years. Not only that but until just two months ago none of the proposed plan was in any way shape or form controversial.
It just suddenly became controversial and it just happened to do it right before the midterm elections. Are you two really so naive to not recognize you’re being played by your own side?
So tell me…if there is already a mosque in the building on that site exactly how is tearing that building down, putting up a new one and then having a mosque in that new building going to change anything? What? Are you two dingy enough to think the militants in the world are going to think “Well we were going to use that mosque as a symbol of our “victory” but damn they moved it 10 blocks away and now we just can’t do it.” You two can make that stupid argument “It will be just used as a symbol of victory” if there is ever a mosque built in New York City anywhere. The terrorists, you two, have no victory…unless your side is stupid enough to give it to them.
Your whole argument, you two, is nonsense. So you can spout off about how reasonable you two are being and how you’re just asking others not to be dicks but sorry, it doesn’t work. To be reasonable you have to deal with facts and logic. And to ask others to not be dicks you have to not be acting that way yourselves.
And you two are being more dickish then me and are being completely unreasonable. You two are being dicks and are trying to pretend that you’re not. At least when I’m acting that way I’m honest about it. I don’t act like an idiot and pretend that I’m really being civil.
You have no facts, you have no evidence, you don’t even have logic. Nor do you two have any shred of morality, Christian or otherwise.
Your naivete is flat out amazing.
LikeLike
Morgan writes: That’s the way Nick is. It’s been proven beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you and I are consistently passing judgment on both relevant situations by means of a sensible “Just don’t be a dick” rule.
*yawns* And yet you two are also being dicks. Your whole side is a big giant colossal group of dicks. Didn’t attempt to sit down quietly with the muslims wanting to build that place, didn’t try and work out a deal. Just went straight for the stupid protest so your side could gin up fear and hatred of muslims. And then even stupider, you two are such ignorant dicks you don’t realize you’re getting played by your precious right wing and Fox News so they can fan the flames of fear and hatred even higher in a craven attempt to win the election in 2 months.
Sorry, you two, you aren’t being reasonable and you weren’t arguing from a position of “not being dicks.” Because that would require you to not be acting like dicks yourselves.
So you two little ones can play the innocent victims all you want but you’re not. They have the right to build that building, deal with it. Quit trying to pretend the US Constitution disappeared on 9-11.
LikeLike
[…] about the crazy, militant Christians? Pastor Joe Leavell, recently a frequent bather in Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, reports on the c…y — it doesn’t involve burning anybody’s scripture, but it’s pretty […]
LikeLike
Not sure if you heard about the first army chaplain to have been killed since the 70s, but he was killed on Aug. 30th in Afghanistan. Several pastors I know knew him as a personal dear friend – a true American hero who loved God, loved the troops he served, and gave his life going above and beyond to be with them.
Guess who will be there protesting his funeral? Westboro Baptist Church – protesting the funeral of a Baptist chaplain! The only way it ties in to this discussion is the “should factor”, but I’m sorry – I just had to voice that this sort of stuff is so disgraceful and makes me so upset – especially when our soldiers are dying to give them the freedom to protest at their funerals! :-( For shame!
Here’s the news article:
kktv.com/military/headlines/102406419.html
Morgan – I know my own limitations, but I never question that God has no limitations – I’m living proof that even stubborn people’s hearts can change as God works.
LikeLike
Morgan, As much as I’d like to, victory in debate is meaningless to me without a change of heart.
Then I’m glad that, for my own purposes, I defined it more as a learning experience. What if I were to set about boiling a stone in a pot of water to see how quickly it dissolves; the stone doesn’t dissolve, so is the effort a failure? No. I learned something that I needed to learn.
That’s the way Nick is. It’s been proven beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you and I are consistently passing judgment on both relevant situations by means of a sensible “Just don’t be a dick” rule. Ed and Nick look like fools for accusing us of being bigots, since if that was what we were, we’d both be chomping at the bit to let the Koran-burning ceremony proceed. Or at least one of us would be. But we’re not; with zero collaboration, both of us come out and say “no, that would be dick behavior, they shouldn’t do that” — exactly the rationale by which we said the Mosque shouldn’t be built where it’s being planned.
How are Nick and Ed being consistent? Only through one way: The religious denomination associated with the darker skin should win at everything. So anyone reading the thread understands who the discriminators are; it is factual, not up for debate; and you & I are not the ones.
Ed, painted into a corner, has generated a trivial difference between the two situations. He proves it the way he always does — putting the onus on the other side to do all the proving. And Nick is just changing the subject, dropping incendiary links in to derogate the character of whoever doesn’t agree with him. Put Nick up against Ann Coulter, and Coulter is the peacemaker out of the two. Hehehe, boy if THAT doesn’t say something. Here’s what she had to say:
The reason not to burn Qurans is that it’s unkind — not to jihadists, but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque at ground zero — in both cases, it’s not a question of anyone’s “rights,” it’s just a nasty thing to do.
Lower, I applaud your effort reaching out to the un-reach-out-able. Think you need to temper this ambition with some advice from a Clint Eastwood character: Man’s got ta know his limitations.
LikeLike
This pastor describes (from a Christian perspective) why this pastor in Florida is just plain wrong. Good read and I totally agree with all his points!
irishcalvinist.com/?p=4832
LikeLike
Morgan,
As much as I’d like to, victory in debate is meaningless to me without a change of heart. I’ve been there numerous times as I helped Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. understand why their views are wrong, but at the end of the day, if they refuse to fill the void of their view with the truth because their hearts are hard, there is no victory. I’ve had Mormons readily admit to me that they don’t believe the Book of Mormon is authentic – they just don’t care because it means they would have to change. It really is possible to win a theological or political debate while losing a person. I find the word “sad” to be a complete understatement. Real victory is making a friend out of your enemy, not just decimating their viewpoint and replacing it with emptiness or pushing them away further. Nic’s post suggests that he will continue to spew hatred and slander towards the right and will not back down, which to me is really sad to me because I assume reasoned discussions mean people have an open mindset.
So Nic, Ed, James, and every other liberal out there, you will always have an olive branch from me and a platform for reconciliataion. I do not hate you – on the contrary, I really would like get to know you beyond just blogging, and be an encouragement to you in any way I can in understanding conservative evangelicalism’s view of Christ, and conservative politics (though I much more enjoy explaining the former). I’m always open to dialogue. I get frustrated sometimes, and I’ll readily admit that I’m not perfect in my discussions, but really, I do want to dialogue in a non-argumentative manner that is honoring to Jesus. I ask for your patience when I fail.
Should I declare an end to the “combate phase” of this discussion? I suppose I could, but I’m sometimes pessimistic by nature and so I’m guessing that attacks will keep coming, though I truly am looking forward to withdraw from the continual grendade attacks that this subject has brought.
LikeLike
Lower,
You can declare victory. Nick has no response to your last, and is apparently willing to all-but-admit as much since he’s changing the subject.
Ed,
Suggest a new open-thread or side column for Nick so he can demonstrate to us repeatedly that he reads ThinkProgress — and accepts as gospel everything he sees there, uncritically.
LikeLike
So much for the right wings respect and honoring of the dead of 9-11. Apparently the right wing views the victims of 9-11 in the same way they view God and Jesus…as whores to make cash off. Once again the Republicans prove that GOP stands for “Greed Over Principles” or “Greed Over People.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/sept-11-profiteer/
LikeLike
Nic, “And you’d have no problem if a bunch of people burned a couple hundred Bibles right?”
Like this church threatened to do? (they actually tore the books apart rather than burn them because they couldn’t get a permit)
npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/07/129701680/koran-burning-has-whiff-of-2009-bible-burning
I’m against burning the Quran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, etc. So is Morgan. Case closed. I also completely agree with the general that this is just not smart but understandably a provacation!
By the way, in Phoenix, we’re close to where Steven Anderson (the one who called for Obama’s death in a sermon called “I hate Barak Obama”) is a pastor. It’s guys like these who make it hard for me to call myself Baptist, and I’ve pastored a Baptist church, you will remember. If Baptists stood for what they originally did, I would be perfectly comfortable using the term more often. I understand what you were saying James, and I have had the same frustrations with religious movements. Thankfully, there are a LOT of pastors coming out against this type of “moralistic deism” and nation worship that permiated in the 60s and 70s. Ed, you should look up Matt Chandler from the Village Church in Dallas – he’s in your neck of the woods. I love this short video out about his reaction to this kind of moralistic gimpy preaching that helps no one come any closer to Jesus:
So Nic, it’s not opposite week – Morgan said he was opposed to the Quran burning and so am I. Period.
You guys however are in a precarious situation, especially Nic. You have come out and said what SHOULD be done and should NOT be done has nothing to do with anything. So…should I tell you to “shut up” and call you a bigot? How about being the party of fear mongering saying that this burning will lead to the deaths of US troops! Fear tactics I tell you! Perhaps also I should call you a hypocrite for defending the liberties of one religious group and condemning the practices of another? They were even denied the burn permit – smacks of bigotry and religious intollerance to me! (notice my tongue in my cheek!)
Perhaps it’s something else, considering we all agree on this book burning that it SHOULD NOT happen even though they have the constitutional right to do so. Sometimes, the public outcry against something that someone does is not bigoty, not trying to deny the 1st ammendment, it’s just saying that something that someone is wanting to do SHOULDN’T happen.
Nic, you don’t need to apologize to me, but I do think you owe your Archbishop an apology for claiming he is being bigoted. Man, no wonder you have such a messed up view of liberals and consevatives! Shoot, the post right after Morgan got done saying that he was against the book burning and agreed with the general and you tell him he and I are for it and it’s all our fault!
Thanks guys for proving in this Quran burning discussion that Morgan the point and I have been making from post #1.
LikeLike
What “pro-victory mosque” child? Has any of the muslims wanting to build that mosque said that is what it is? Do you have any evidence to back that claim?
And you’d have no problem if a bunch of people burned a couple hundred Bibles right?
LikeLike
No, I’m not ready to surrender, to concede that militant terrorists have succeeded in defeating America — but there’s no reason to oppose a “victory mosque” that isn’t proposed by anyone.
Nor am I willing to poke Islam in the eye by denying Sufis a cultural center even two blocks close to the WTC site, nor to poke Islam in the eye by burning their holy scriptures.
It thought it ironic that the Rev. Jones in Florida doesn’t read Arabic — and so won’t know how many Bibles he’s burning, too.
Rev. Jones is the #1 recruiter for al Quaeda in the world right now. Doesn’t that make him an “enemy combatant?” You can bet that, were George W. Bush president today, Rev. Jones would be suffocating in a cell in Guantanamo waiting to be waterboarded, right?
LikeLike
Ed says>>>”I will, and do — but it’s a topic of some heavy discussion among Disciples of Christ, I must tell you. In our congregation, the flag is presented on the Sundays before the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, and Veterans’Day. We have a lot of veterans who think it’s a grand idea, in great moderation.”<<<
Moderation is something I trust the DoC to get right. I've done some pulpit supply for the DoC and they seem to have a healthy balance.
In the church tradition I was raised in (Baptist first, then Christian & Missionary Alliance), the flag and the Bible (rather than Jesus) were objects of worship. I still remember a sermon back in the 70's about why we should use nuclear weapons to destroy all the Communist countries. That was a real, flag-wavin' barn burner. And I bought it hook, line and sinker back then.
I am hopeful that evangelical churches aren't quite as militant these days. But I dunno.
LikeLike
Well lets see if Morgan and Lower want to pretend that they have a better grasp of the situation then General Petraeus:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
KABUL, Afghanistan – The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Tuesday an American church’s threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide.
Meanwhile, NATO reported the death of an American service member in an insurgent attack in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday.
The comments from Gen. David Petraeus followed a protest Monday by hundreds of Afghans over the plans by Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center — a small, evangelical Christian church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy — to burn copies of the Quran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States that provoked the Afghan war.
“Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence,” Petraeus said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen echoed those sentiments Tuesday, saying any burning “would be in a strong contradiction with the all the values we stand for and fight for.”
Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Quran is deeply offensive.
In 2005, 15 people died and scores were wounded in riots in Afghanistan sparked by a story in Newsweek magazine alleging interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay placed copies of the Quran in washrooms and flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk. Newsweek later retracted the story.
Responding to Petraeus’ comments, Dove World Outreach Center’s senior pastor Terry Jones acknowledged Petraeus’ concerns as legitimate but said the church still planned to go ahead with the burning.
“We are at this time not going to cancel it. We’re still considering it and praying about it,” Jones told The Associated Press. “We are also just also concerned and wondering, when do we stop? How much do we back down? … Instead of us backing down, maybe it’s to time to stand up.”
The church, which made headlines last year after distributing T-shirts that said “Islam is of the Devil,” has been denied a permit to set a bonfire but has vowed to proceed with the burning. The congregation’s website estimates it has about 50 members, but the church has leveraged the Internet with a Facebook page and blog devoted to its Quran-burning plans.
The American’s death brings to at least six the number of U.S. forces killed in Afghanistan this month, along with at least four other non-American members of the international coalition.
Engagements with insurgents are rising along with the addition of another 30,000 U.S. troops, bringing the total number of international forces in the country to more than 140,000.
At least 322 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan so far this year, exceeding the previous annual record of 304 for all of 2009, according to an AP count.
Petraeus is asking for 2,000 more trainers and field troops for the international force, NATO officials said Monday. It was unclear how many would be Americans.
Also Tuesday, authorities confirmed the ambush killing of a district chief by suspected insurgents in the northern province of Baghlan on Monday afternoon. Nahrin district chief Rahmad Sror Joshan Pool was on his way home after a memorial service for slain anti-Soviet guerrilla leader Ahmad Shah Massoud when rocket-propelled grenades hit his vehicle, setting it on fire, said provincial spokesman Mahmood Haqmal.
Pool’s bodyguard was also killed in the attack, and one militant died and two were wounded in the ensuing fire fight with police, Haqmal said.
Five children were killed and five wounded in Yaya Khil district in the southern province of Paktika when an insurgent rocket fired at an Afghan army base hit a home Monday evening, provincial government spokesman Mokhlais Afghan said.
Kidnappers also seized two electoral workers and their two drivers in the western province of Ghor, according to deputy provincial police chief Ahmad Khan Bashir.
Insurgents have waged a campaign of violence and intimidation to prevent Afghans from voting, especially in rural areas, while some pre-election violence has also been blamed on rivalries among the candidates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congratulations, Lower and Morgan, you are contributing to endangering our troops and lessening our national security. And all because you can’t figure out that your anti-Muslim hysteria doesn’t help.
You must be so proud of yourselves…just like all the Germans who went along with Hitler’s antisemitism.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness, Nick has gotten himself excited since I started ignoring him.
I’m curious, Nick. You love to throw down rhetorical questions, you love to state things from your point of view and then demand answers to things to show the other side’s inconsistency. And then do it again, as if trying to prove something you don’t really think can be proved.
Let’s see how you react to the same treatment.
I am opposed to the Koran-burning event being planned in Florida. Ed’s site doesn’t seem to be embedding links properly, so I’ll just paste it into the text here:
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2010/09/petraeus-is-right.html
I’m siding with the General in this matter, for the same reason I am opposed to the Victory Mosque: Needless provocation.
You’re in favor of the Victory Mosque, and ready to level all sorts of insults upon the 70 percent of Americans who aren’t taking your side in this thing.
Since you disagree with me on the Mosque, you must also disagree with me on the Koran burning. You must be wanting that to proceed, in order to provide a bulwark of support for Freedom of Speech.
Because if you’re going to oppose that event, as I do, then that would be TRULY hypocritical.
Right?
Ed, you can consider the same question to be directed to you. You aren’t Pro-Victory-Mosque, Anti-Koran-Burning, are you? You wouldn’t take one side in one issue, and a different one on the other, would you?
LikeLike
I will, and do — but it’s a topic of some heavy discussion among Disciples of Christ, I must tell you. In our congregation, the flag is presented on the Sundays before the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, and Veterans’Day. We have a lot of veterans who think it’s a grand idea, in great moderation.
LikeLike
Oops I forgot under the conservative side:
Using Christianity, God and Jesus as whores to gain political power. And the outright twisting and betrayal of what Jesus actually taught.
LikeLike
I know, ed, lets list the liberal/left wing ideas and see if they object to them.
1: Free speech
2: right to assemble/protest the government
3: religious freedom, which includes both of/from
4: equality between the genders
5: equality between the “races”
6: women and minority can vote
7: abolition of slavery
8: workplace safety rules
9: right to get paid for work
10: the miranda rights
11: right against search and seizure
12: right to not incriminate oneself in court
13: right to not be compelled to pray or practice one religion by the state.
14: right to not have one’s kids be compelled to pray in school by the state.
15: progressive tax system instead of the rich and powerful getting by on the backs of those lower then them.
16: right to not have health care denied to oneself or one’s child by health insurance company despite paying that insurance company for health care.
And oh yes the most important ones: The right to vote, the existance of the United States, the right to a democratic Republic, the right not to be subject to the tyranny of the monarchy/empire.
And now lets see what the conservative ideas have entailed:
1: right to hold slaves
2: denial of women the right to vote
3: denial of minorities the right to vote
4: no workplace safety rules, if your employer didnt want to pay for such things and you died or were grievously injured well that was just your tough luck
5: if your health insurance company denied your child treatement for cancer and your child died well that was just your tough luck
6: the rich and powerful becoming ever more rich and powerful while the rest of us are reduced to barely better then serfs
7: abrogation of the right to vote
8: the replacing of democracy with a corptocracy
9: two wars and tax cuts to the rich that bankrupt the country
10: division of the country along the fault lines of fear and hatred
11: ending of the social safety net
12: government espionage of its own citizens without having to get a warrant
13: the idea of “if you’re not guilty you have nothing to hide.”
14: torture
15: being confined without trial
16: talks of treason/secession
17: desire to impeach the president simply because you don’t like who he is or what color he is
18: birthers
19: teabaggers
20: saying that the US military should launch a coup to remove a duely elected president.
21: continous attacks on science because of supposed religious/idealogical beliefs
22: celebration/worship of ignorance
23: annointing a cult leader the “messiah” and the “king of earth.”
24: erosion of equality and erosion of the middle class
25: concentrating the wealth of the country in the hands of the few to the detriment of the country and everyone else.
LikeLike
Ed says…
>>>”That odd, left-wing idea of freedom of and from religion, as portrayed in the Constitution and especially Amendment 1, is a good enough idea to make up for all the bad ones.
I wish right-wingers and religiocrats would someday read those documents, realize what a good idea religious freedom is, and work to protect it, instead of their constant hammering away at the foundations of religious freedom.”<<<
I do wonder where all the Baptists have gone. There was a time when they were out in front in the fight against any mixing of church and state. Of course, my people — the Episcopalians — were prone to favor the whole "state church" concept at the time. (It worked so swimmingly in England, right? Ha!) And some of our worst were pretty awful to Baptists, Quakers and so on.
The worm sure has turned, hasn't it? For both the Baptists and the Episcopalians.
Personally, I won't worship in any church that has an American flag in the sanctuary like the ones I grew up in. I thought we were supposed to tear down our Asherah poles.
LikeLike
To quote:
I wish left-wing ideas turned out to be good ones, at least as often as random chance would determine.
I wish that right wing ideas turned out to be good ones, even if it was just random chance determined it. But as of yet none of their ideas are good ones.
I don’t think, child, you get to whine about left wing ideas being bad when it is the right wing that continously ****s up everything in this country.
LikeLike
That odd, left-wing idea of freedom of and from religion, as portrayed in the Constitution and especially Amendment 1, is a good enough idea to make up for all the bad ones.
I wish right-wingers and religiocrats would someday read those documents, realize what a good idea religious freedom is, and work to protect it, instead of their constant hammering away at the foundations of religious freedom.
LikeLike
Tell me, Morgan, why should I have any respect for your side of the political spectrum when it uses God, Jesus and Christianity as political whores? Glenn Beck has spent how many months now attacking “social justice” as a perversion of Christianity? Has he actually read what Jesus said? Have you?
Why should I respect a bunch of people who claim to be Christians but can’t even figure out Christianity enough to reject the blatherings of that mad man?
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
Honestly guys…there’s so much “you’re a…” “no you’re a…” going around that it just makes me so sick of this whole discussion because it does squat for the advancement of anything meaningful!
Tell me, when are you going to notice that your party exists on nothing but “you’re a…” Can you name a single leader in your party that doesn’t do that to anyone its facing?
You’re interested in the advancement of something meaningful? Since when? I haven’t seen you say that your side should have sat down and tried discussing your concerns with the people behind that mosque. I haven’t seen you say that you will respect their decision nor say that it is their decision. I have seen you make a lot of stupid statements as attacks against those people. I haven’t seen you condemn the antimuslim violence that’s been going on nor have I seen you say that your side is responsible for egging that violence on.
I haven’t seen you condemn the protests going on against the mosques in other places. I haven’t seen you acknowledge that not all of the families of the 9-11 victims have a problem with that mosque. I have yet to see you acknowledge that this whole anti-NY mosque bit wasn’t even a controversy until less then 2 months ago when the right wing decided to gin it up. I have yet to see you acknowledge that quite a few of the same people criticizing that mosque were the same ones praising it earlier. Nor have I seen you acknowledge that your side, or at least part of it, is using the issue in an attempt to scare white people into voting for them. Hell you can’t even admit that you yourself aren’t even interested in “preserving the honor of the victims.”
You want meaningful progress? Then lets see you step up to that bar first, Morgan.
Oh and I’m not a fearful person. The right wing doesn’t fear me because I recognize that the right wing is in its death throes…that the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs within 20 years. I don’t fear you or those on your side of the political fence, Morgan…I don’t even detest you personally. But the people you blindly follow…those are people worthy of my contempt. They are immoral, they are depraved and they don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves. And they certainly don’t give a damn about you.
Because I was once a Republican until the party went so far to the right that I could no longer in good conscience support them. if I could have voted in 1992 it probably would have been for George H Bush if the Republicans leadership hadn’t started down the slow slide to insanity by then. If John McCain had been the Republicans nominee in 2000 I would have had a tough choice that year but again I probably wouldn’t have voted for him not because of him…but because of his party. I voted for Republicans Arne Carlson and Mark Kennedy because they, unlike most other Republicans, were center right and not far right wing. They cared about doing the right thing even if it wasn’t a clean fit among the supposed “conservative” ideaology. And I put “conservative” in quotes because most “conservatives” in this country nowadays are not real conservatives. I’ve read Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” and there was quite a bit in that I agreed with. But the modern day Republicans…the modern day conservatives are nothing like what Goldwater said conservatives should be. The tea party is a joke, its nothing more then a Republican created shill. It is not grass roots and their sudden concern for government spending and the defecit is hypocritical at best since they never uttered a peep about Bush/Cheney/Republican’s unrestrained spending from 2000 to 2008.
And like I said…your party so far this year has drummed up fear against blacks, hispanics, gays, the unemployed, the impoversihed, the middle class and now muslims. Who is next, Morgan? Jews? Women? Catholics?
All your party has done this year is try to win the election on a platform of fear. It has proposed nothing to fix the problems facing this country. It has no plans on how to govern. Instead of taking the 2006 and 2008 elections as a clue to go back to being moderates or center right the REpublican party has gone further to the right. It may win this election that way, it may even win the next election that way…but sooner then you like to think your party is going to hit a very fat brick wall. Because unlike what you and Lower think…this election isn’t about the people favoring the Republicans. If it was then why are the Republicans the party with the absolute lowest approval rating? Your party, if it wins, will make the same mistakes it made that led to their defeats in 2006 and 2008 and your party will be removed from power again. And by that time your party will have lost its bastion in the south. And all because your party is becoming nothing more then the party of the scared white man. And simple demographics will doom your party if it doesn’t change.
So I know the Republican playbook, Morgan, I know it by heart. I’ve been interested in politics since I was young, it runs in the family. Which is why I don’t act like what you expect Democrats to act like…scared little children that you and yours can bully into submission.
There’s a line the fictional character of Bruno Gianelli said on West Wing that I like. I think the Democrats should take it to heart: Because I’m tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I’m tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, “‘Liberal’ means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we’re gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn’t have to go to work if they don’t want to!” And instead of saying, “Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties…!”, we cowered in the corner, and said, “Please. Don’t. Hurt. Me.” No more. I really don’t care who’s right, who’s wrong. We’re both right. We’re both wrong. Let’s have two parties, huh? What do you say?
LikeLike
Honestly guys…there’s so much “you’re a…” “no you’re a…” going around that it just makes me so sick of this whole discussion because it does squat for the advancement of anything meaningful!
That — not that anybody’s wondering — is why my participation has been light. I’ve not made a point of reading every single comment like I should. I’m sure no one misses me. But I’ve already made the point that modern strident liberalism has degenerated into a discipline of third-grade playground namecalling & little more; since then, my point has been just proven over and over and over again and I don’t see the need to keep saying it.
I wish left-wing ideas turned out to be good ones, at least as often as random chance would determine. If that were the case, then the supporters of such ideas could argue the ideas, and leave the assets/liabilities of the opponents personalities, completely alone.
Clearly, that is not what we have going on here.
LikeLike
James: Good thoughts on 1st John. Thanks.
Regarding fear – my only point was that there is a time and place for healthy fear – for those who do not trust in God, the Bible (God) says that they are fools and the beginning path to wisdom is fear of God (the New Testament uses the word for fear that we get “phobia” from – not just awe and respect to have a phobia.) Because God is a God of love, and because of the hellfire and damnation preachers of yesteryear, we oftentimes diminish God’s character by treating him like a ninny that we could either give or take. Not cool.
It’s a very imprefect analogy, but let me us a policeman as an example. For those on the wrong side of the law, they have a right to fear the police because of the consequences of their bad behavior. For those who seek to do things according to the law (bad analogy because we’re not under “the Law” anymore…just work with me, ok?), the policeman is still respected and feared for a different reason…not because of fear he’s going to arrest us, but out of respect and apprecaition for who he is and what he does. I’m still intimidated around cops, even when I’ve worked with them…just by virtue of their position and authority. Make sense? So, fear of God doesn’t go away after we trust in Him, it merely changes. C.S. Lewis’ Aslan is a good allegory because those who were his enemies feared him, but the children in the story who loved him…still had a healthy fear…he after all was not a tame lion. Yet I have no fear of eternal condemnation because of trusting in Jesus Christ’s perfect love and sacrifice.
I’ve definitely not been perfect on this thread either James. If I have needlessly offended you, Nic, or Ed by careless words, then I do apologize.
Regarding what Nic said about “no one said…” he’s right – I couldn’t believe I left out the words “on this thread” from my comment! I thought I had said that, but I went back and looked and I guess I hadn’t. Obviously, if I generalized then someone could eventually be found who actually said the wrong thing. :-) This case it’s Morris I take it. No defense…I just messed up and unintentionally said the wrong thing.
James, I’m glad you understand that fine line of attributing a bigotted act to someone (when it could be possible for any person to be guilty of such) and accusing that person of BEING a bigot (impuning his character). Nic again says that the Bishop was “acting as a bigot” but never comes out and says that he IS a bigot. I asked again, Nic, because you never said he was a bigot…you merely said something to the effect that you disagreed with him and that Catholics aren’t puppets (glad to hear – welcome to the Reformation, my friend) :-). So, again I asked again and again because you never said (and still didn’t) that the Bishop IS a bigot. It’s not semantics, though I am surprised that you indeed think that the Bishop is acting in a bigoted manner. His argument was more than reasonable and his attempt to reconcile the two sides more than gracious. Again…why am I the one defending a Catholic Bishop? :-)
Honestly guys…there’s so much “you’re a…” “no you’re a…” going around that it just makes me so sick of this whole discussion because it does squat for the advancement of anything meaningful!
Nic said, “You are trying to blame the entirety of Islam for the actions of a crazed few.”
Am not. :-) How long do you want to keep this up? Why do you continually persist in attaching positions to me that I’ve never taken? Perhaps I should counter, “oh yeah, well you hate The United States because you’re a liberal!” Is that kind of rhetoric of mischaracterizing one’s true views helpful? Um…no.
Look, I’ve layed it out in simple terms so if you’re still persisting in misrepresting me so many times (more than I have time to point out) like this, either I’m not communicating enough or effectively (and three threads or more SHOULD be enough to communicate my idea) (oops – I said the word ‘should), or you’re not listening, or you’re misrepresenting my views on purpose. Which is it?
I know your position. I agree with it – the Muslim’s have the right to build at 51 Park Ave and shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their religion. :-) Happy? I’ve said that in so many words how many times?
Then I state my side that while they have the right and shouldn’t be impeded, I don’t believe they should exersize that right for the purpose of peace – then you say “it doesn’t matter – shut up!” Anything I missed?
“one governed by a politics of fear, or one governed by a politics of courage and openness.”
So, we both agree that we need to ditch both parties and start a new one? :-) LOL Trust me, I’ve got a LOT of problems with the Rebublican party and have been very vocal about it – I just wasn’t a blogger back then. You guys keep attacking their leadership in the past and I keep saying, “I know! I agree! But I think Dems are WORSE!” For me…it’s voting for the lesser of two evils. Wish I could be more optimistic but the Democratic party doesn’t inspire any confidence…especially since your characterizing them as a party of “courage and openness” is completely false. Remember Pelosi “we need to pass the bill to see what’s in it”?? Just one example of a myriad…how many closed door meetings now from the most transparent administration in history??? Sorry…Republicans have problems to be sure…but saying the Democrats are the solution over the Republicans is kind of like the difference between a slow death and a quick death in my opinion. Maybe a quick death is better?
The answer to these problems is that people need to place their faith in Jesus, not their politicians (though they definitely need to be obedient citizens). :-) Sorry if that offends you out there in the blogosphere…but it is. :-)
LikeLike
Hi there Morgan!
I think it’s really amusing to see you accusing Nick of being a fearful person, when all I have read from you here is fear of the President, fear of Democrats, fear of liberals and fear of Muslims.
As to perfect love, I am referencing St. John’s poetic tome in his first epistle It’s a passage I surely fail to live up to sometimes. I bet Nick would admit that he does, too. How about you?
Contextually, the Apostle is laying out a blueprint for how love is supposed to work in human relationships. But the juxtapositioning of love against judgment is intriguing. John is saying that because of God’s loving embrace of each of us, in Jesus Christ, we have no reason any longer to fear judgment. Jesus was judged on our behalf. So because we have perfect peace with God and needn’t fear His wrath any longer, we can live in love. How perfect is the love I practice? That depends entirely on how willing I am to let Jesus behave through me. Sometimes I do just that. Too often, I do not. But I am working on it.
It gets sticky where social justice is concerned. Because of the love I have received from Jesus Christ, I care about who and what He cares about. The poor, the sick, the prisoner, the marginalized. And when I see those sorts of people being pounded and pummeled by the wealthy, the powerful, and the “big deals”…I get my dander up. Jesus did too!
Ah, but here’s the key. And I’ll admit it. He was perfect. I am about as far from it as you’ll get. So I let my righteous anger turn to unrighteous sometimes. It’s a fine line between saying Glenn Beck’s ideas are malignant, loathesome and evil…and saying that Glenn Beck (or Barack Obama!) is those things. I’m still working on it, to be sure.
That said, I can’t pretend I don’t see my black neighbors being mistreated…my Muslim friends being spat upon…my gay nephew being denied a basic human right…the worker at the local parts plant being cheated and robbed by his millionaire bosses. What is a boy to do? ;-) It’s okay if you don’t see it. Or, if you do see it, it’s certainly your right (and anyone else’s) to believe “the market” will magically fix everything with a healthy helping of Libertarian fairy dust and an outpouring of individual generosity and volunteerism.
Actually, I’d love to live in that world. I don’t. In the world I live in — presumably Nick and a lot of other people, too — those at the margins need help. From every corner- government, church, business, individual, etc.
But if I’ve been rude to you, or Lower, I apologize. It was wrong of me.
For a useful point of reference, here’s the whole context of the “perfect love casts out all fear” verse. Perhaps it will be helpful to all of us…
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because God first loved us. If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
LikeLike
Well, Nick beat me to it, but I was going to point out that lowevelevel’s claim that “No one has said that those in the mosque will incite violence” is demonstrably untrue. And Morris’s claim is pure fear-mongering.
Either lower’s not paying attention to what’s going on (in which case why should we pay any attention to him), or he’s lying (which is the other foundation, along with fear, of contemporary conservatism).
But lower’s right about one thing. I do fear what conservatives will do to this country. They’ve done so damned much damage already, and I worry about what kind of country my kids will grow up in: one governed by a politics of fear, or one governed by a politics of courage and openness.
LikeLike
Jim Stanley sez:
And perfect love casts out all fear.
Nick sez:
[Republicans] have no intentions of fixing any of the problems this country has, Lower. And its for a simple reason that I already said. they simply don’t give a damn about the people of this country. They will not do one single thing that you think they will, Lower. So vote for them if you want…but you’re only voting against your own interests by doing so.
I have a question for the general readership. Who here agrees that fear of something, even rational fear, is the beginning of a journey. A journey that, once completed, will & ought rightfully eradicate the fear? Who here would go along with the statement that fear is something to be done-away-with? And that in the course of doing so would make us better people?
And out of those, who here would grant an exception to Nick and the many, many strident liberals just like him? Yes, you have to vote Nick’s way or else you’re one of the monsters trying to screw us all over, or one of their willing dupes — that kind of fear is quite alright and should be nurtured.
Jim, I think Nick needs some perfect love.
LikeLike
Hi everyone!
Did Lower actually say fear is a good thing, because the Bible says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”?
There are a couple things worth noting about that.
1. The Hebrew word used in this context was translated “fear”, but Rabbis will tell you that there are multiple Hebrew words that can be translated that way. Some imply “shaking in your boots and trembling”…others imply cowardice…still others, as in this context, lean more toward reverance, honor and holy respect. So…fear of terrorists may or may not be called for. But that’s not the sort of fear we’re supposed to have for the Father of Jesus. He’s not a terrorist. (Though, admittedly, some of His more confused followers are.)
2. The Scriptures say the fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom. If you’re a pilgrim on a journey, I would hope that you would not remain where your journey begins. I would hope that you would make progress. A healthy reverence for the Lord is wise. And no, it shouldn’t be lost or abandoned in the name of feelgood trends or sentimentality. But it’s still the beginning. There’s so much more waiting for us on the journey. Like relentless mercy…ferocious tenderness…passionate intimacy. It’s all part of what G.K. Chesterton called, “the furious love of God”.
And perfect love casts out all fear.
LikeLike
Lower says that noone has said that the people at the mosque would cause violence.
I didn’t know “noone” went by the name of Dick Morris:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008180074
MORRIS: These Sharia mosques and that’s the key word, Sharia, not mosque, have become the command centers for terrorism —
O’REILLY: You believe that this mosque, if it were built —
MORRIS: — look at their role in 9/11 and Fort Hood.
O’REILLY: — would be used for nefarious purposes, that’s the bottom line on Dick Morris, you believe that it would be —
MORRIS: Yes, it isn’t just it would be a triumphant monument —
O’REILLY: It’s speculation though, Dick. Right.
MORRIS: — it would be a command – Well, the other ones are.
O’REILLY: Okay.
MORRIS: But the other mosques are.
LikeLike
BY the way, lower, don’t think the Republicans are going to somehow balance Obama. See for that to happen they would have to be willing to compromise and work with the President. They haven’t…they have no intention of doing so. Their plans are to shut down the government and do their damndest to investigate the President until they find something…or make up something to impeach him on.
They have no intentions of fixing any of the problems this country has, Lower. And its for a simple reason that I already said. they simply don’t give a damn about the people of this country. They will not do one single thing that you think they will, Lower.
So vote for them if you want…but you’re only voting against your own interests by doing so.
LikeLike
Lower writes:
James, sometimes fear is legitimate. Remember that Proverbs teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. All fear does not = cowardice because sometimes fear is the better part of wisdom.
Yeah I prefer Dick Gregory’s “Fear and God do not occupy the same space.” Lower. The Taliban operate on fear. Al Qaeda operates on fear. Every time any religion has been misused and used to justify intolerance, oppression, persecution and murder it has been on fear. And there you sit…trying to justify the same thing.
There are things that deserved to be feared, Lower, but irrational fear is not justified ever. You, Morgan and the rest are operating out of an irrational fear. You are cowards, you want to give the terrorists exactly what they want because you think it will protect you. You are Chamberlain to their Hitler. You are willing to sacrifice the ideals of this country because of your irrational fear.
Lower writes:
So, even if your assertion is true (and I’m not saying that it is), then rather than degrading conservativism as being a movement of fear (which it is not by definition), you are burdened with the responsibility of not only proving that it is a movement of fear
Really? It’s not? Have you been paying attention to it? In the last year the conservative movement has drummed up fear of Obama, fear of liberals, fear of hispanics, fear of blacks, fear of gays, fear of the poor, and now fear of Muslims. There has not been one positive thing that your party has done. There has not been one argument your party has made in the last year or even in the last three decades that has not been based on fear, Lower. The conservative movement has become nothing but the party of fear mongerers.
Lower writes:
No one has said that those in the mosque will incite violence. Indeed, it is not an argument based on fear but rather an argument based on morality and virtue rather than fear. The only fear I have is how this mosque will embolden terrorists who will perceive this mosque as a 9/11 victory and will lift their morale to carry on their fight.
THey are not the ones running that mosque though, Lower. And if you block that mosque they are going to see it as a victory too, that they have succeeded in getting the United States to turn this into a war against the entirety of Islam. And don’t say “No one has said that those in the mosque will incite violence” because I’ll find the quotes to prove you wrong, Lower.
You are trying to blame the entirety of Islam for the actions of a crazed few. You don’t think that’s wrong? What is the difference between what you’re doing and what HItler did to the Jews after a jewish person killed a german diplomat in the 1930’s?
Lower writes:
Are you accusing this of me, Morgan, or Nic for never responding to whether or not the Archbishop is a bigot?
Yeah curiously you’re ignoring the fact that I didn’t ignore that question. I said the Bishop was wrong, I said the Bishop was acting as a bigot. What? I’m Catholic so I have to swallow hook line and sinker what Catholic leaders say? Sorry, that might be in your delusional view of Catholics, but that rule exists nowhere in reality. I disagree with various Catholic leaders, including the Pope, on several different issues. That doesn’t make me any less of a Catholic. Unlike the right wing evangelical Protestants like you we don’t surrender our minds when we join the church.
Lower writes:
at’s not unfounded fear – I truly am freaked out at what healthcare, taxes, unemployment, etc. will look like if we don’t find some balance to the liberals who control congress. I’m scared of what my children’s future will look like if this defecit spending doesn’t get under control.
Tell me..where was your concern for the defecit spending when Bush and the Republicans (i.e. the conservatives) were the ones raising the defecit to unheard of heights? Or did you miss when the CBO declared that over 60% of the defecit is because of Bush’s two wars and Bush’s tax cuts? Tell me, what is your children’s future going to look like if the health care industry isn’t brought under control? What do you think your children’s future will be when the fact that the richest 10% of the country have over 60% of the wealth goes to them having over 80% of the wealth? What do you think your children’s future will be like when the richest 10% of the country see their incomes rise 300% in 30 years and the middle class income flatlines? What do you think your kids futures will be like when the rich have their taxes cut again but your kids get nothing? What do you think your children’s future will be like when the Republicans gain control? THey don’t give a damn about unemployment, they have no plans at all to deal with the economic morass this country is in, Lower. They have no plans period..they have no idea how to fix this country, they have no plans how to repair their mistakes. Indeed they want to repeat them.
And there you sit thinking that you are guaranteeing your children’s future by voting for them? No…you are only guaranteeing that your children will be little better then slaves to the people with all the money and all the power.
The conservative movement, the Republican party does not give a damn about you or your children, Lower. Not at all. You are only fooling yourself.
LikeLike
Hi Lower!
I’m glad you mentioned the “truther” movement. Almost every liberal I know thinks the truther movement is on crack. Keith Olbermann — easily my least favorite liberal talking head — has been relentless in mocking these nuts. Ditto Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Stephanie Miller.
The only elected Democrat to actually go on record as a truther was the repugnant Cynthia McKinney of Georgia. Within days of her statement suggesting The Decider may have been complicit in 9/11, McKinney faced a raft of condemnations and even calls for censure…from her fellow Democrats. She was primaried and the the party — because of this awful comment and some other offensive behavior on her part — endorsed her Democratic opponent.
I am sure there are some liberals in the truther movement. Just as I am sure there are some random Democrats in the birther movement. But the overwhelming number of birthers are conservative. And the truthers tend to be Anarchists and Libertarians.
LikeLike
James, sometimes fear is legitimate. Remember that Proverbs teaches that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. All fear does not = cowardice because sometimes fear is the better part of wisdom.
For example, it is foolish to not be afraid of what would happen if you walked in front of a semi, no? No one would say, “guttless git” to that, would they? Nor would the accusation convince anyone who is afraid of stepping in front of a semi to bow to peer pressure.
So, even if your assertion is true (and I’m not saying that it is), then rather than degrading conservativism as being a movement of fear (which it is not by definition), you are burdened with the responsibility of not only proving that it is a movement of fear, but also burdened with convincing people why those perceived fears are unfounded and the result of cowardice rather than just a degradation of their character. Being afraid of something could actually be a very wise move. You make the easy claim that fear = cowardice, so how do you go about attaching that presupposition to this whole discussion on the mosque?
No one has said that those in the mosque will incite violence. Indeed, it is not an argument based on fear but rather an argument based on morality and virtue rather than fear. The only fear I have is how this mosque will embolden terrorists who will perceive this mosque as a 9/11 victory and will lift their morale to carry on their fight. To say you are not afraid of terrorists shows a lack of understanding of what they would do to the US if given an opportunity. Fear of what terorists would do to the country we love if it was not well defended is a legitimate fear, is it not?
James said, “Second, someone who ducks the question while asking others to answer questions is indeed acting cowardly.”
Are you accusing this of me, Morgan, or Nic for never responding to whether or not the Archbishop is a bigot?
Again, you (like Nic and ed) make the false argument that this disussion has anything to do with the Bill of Rights and that if conservatives had their way, they would do away with them. Not one person here has claimed that Muslims do not have the constitutional right to build a mosque so therefore your entire theory is completely off base.
Indeed, I would assert that the main conservative fear (that I believe is legit) is how unrecognizable this country will be to us all when the liberals are done with it by 2012. That’s not unfounded fear – I truly am freaked out at what healthcare, taxes, unemployment, etc. will look like if we don’t find some balance to the liberals who control congress. I’m scared of what my children’s future will look like if this defecit spending doesn’t get under control.
I would also contend that you are afraid of conservatism based on your unfounded fear for the removal of the Bill of Rights should conservatism have its way. Do I call you a “git” because you are afraid of conservatives?
Beyond all that, this isn’t even just about conservatives in this case – Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Donald Trump, and the Archbishop of NY have all supported the mosque changing their location. No one has accused them of being ‘gits.’ There are a lot of independents and even some liberals who do not desire that mosque to be at ground zero for moral reasons. Again, thanks for the titles, but you all have yet to make plain as to why those others get a pass and I do not.
LikeLike
lowelevel,
“Pointless” name calling? Not at all, there’s a very good point to it.
First, those who are freaked out about the idea of Muslims building a community center that includes a mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero are indeed cowards. The rest of us are not scared of allowing them to do so.
Second, someone who ducks the question while asking others to answer questions is indeed acting cowardly.
Indeed conservatism is an ideology based on fear. It’s an ideology suited primarily for cowards. but of course they dress it up as patriotism, with a bright coating of bravado. But bravado is not the same as courage. It is only a mask covering their fear.
I choose the term cowardly with great purpose and intent. It is not pointless at all. My mission is to spread the awareness that American conservatives are essentially a crew of cowards who are afraid of standing up for the ideals found in the Bill of Rights.
LikeLike
James said, “All this hand-wringing and whimpering reminds me of the 1990′s. I remember preachers and pundits fulminating about black helicopters, hidden meanings in the Procter & Gamble “Man in the Moon” symbol, secret UN, Clinton and Bilderberg conspiracies.”
Some conspiracy akin to Bush blowing up the Twin Towers to incite a war? Hmmm…wait, that’s right, conspiracy theories are just the result of right wing fanatics. I forgot.
The flight 93 memorial was offensive to several of the families of the victims – that is why they changed it (though it did make it to the national news level briefly). It wasn’t a national controversy like this one is and it was true that the thing was in the shape of a crescent moon and they changed it. Problem solved.
Nic said, “And what do you, Morgan and the rest of your fellows are doing to the muslims in New York if not pointless name calling?
Sorry, Lower, a victim you’re not.”
There is a difference between disagreeing with what someone is doing and and saying and calling them names. I have been quite vocal in my disagreement but I don’t believe I’ve ever stooped to personal insults. Tell me, what “name calling” have I personally done of Muslims in general? Show me where and I’ll gladly apologize for my mispoken words.
You’re right – a victim I am not. Frustrated that my blogging opponents have stooped so low to the point of spewing pointless prattle about my character (or lack thereof) that has nothing to do with the subject at hand because their arguments are hopelessly shallow and based on false premises and false accusations…yes.
Again Nic…I ask you…is the Archbishop of New York a bigot as well?
LikeLike
Lower writes:
And now James joins in the fray of pointless name calling. Weee, what fun this whole discussion really is and how it is making progress!
And what do you, Morgan and the rest of your fellows are doing to the muslims in New York if not pointless name calling?
Sorry, Lower, a victim you’re not.
LikeLike
All this hand-wringing and whimpering reminds me of the 1990’s. I remember preachers and pundits fulminating about black helicopters, hidden meanings in the Procter & Gamble “Man in the Moon” symbol, secret UN, Clinton and Bilderberg conspiracies.
If you guys ever get tired of crying about those evil Muslims, Bill and Hillary are still alive and kicking. A little variety in your boogeymen might do you some good.
LikeLike
James: “Oh, and did I mention that you’re a cowardly little git?”
And now James joins in the fray of pointless name calling. Weee, what fun this whole discussion really is and how it is making progress!
Warren couldn’t reverse a position he hadn’t spoken out on very well, could he? His preference is to abstain from politics entirely, but on this one he was led to understand that he needed to speak out publically…which he did, didn’t he? So…what’s the problem with Warren again?
LikeLike
lowerlevel–After months of pressure, Rick Warren finally reversed position and condemned the plan to execute homosexuals, after refusing to do so for a considerable period of time. And he still has close ties to the people advocating it. And he still is Christian, like they are.
Freeberg–“Victory temple?” Nobody’s building a victory temple anywhere. Just because you’re able to type out the words doesn’t mean they’re an accurate description of what Park 51 is. All you really do is reveal your own bigotry.
As to ministers refusing to conduct gay weddings, I support their rights to do so without reservation.
Now, you cowardly little git, I’ve answered you question instead of running away. Why don’t you show that you’re not the coward you appear to be, and answer my question?
Oh, and did I mention that you’re a cowardly little git? What with your ducking of questions, your pants-wetting fear of Muslims, etc. why don’t you go hide in your mom’s basement and let those of us who aren’t cowering in fear take care of the country’s business?
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
In fact, Ed, so far as I know, no such Christian “Victory Temple” is being proposed in the areas discussed by James.
No “victory mosque” is being propsed for anywhere near the WTC site, Morgan.
Except, of course, in your delusions.
Sorry, Morgan, if you have to cook up lies and false claims to support your position, your position is worthless.
LikeLike
By the way, I’m not sure if you’re up to speed on the flight 93 memorial controversy from a few years back, but originally the memorial was shaped as a cresent moon (boy, I wonder how that could possibly be offensive). There were a lot of people upset, including many of the victim’s families. You know what the developers and the architects did?
Here’s the quote from wikipedia:
“In response to criticism, the designer has agreed to modify the plan. The architect believes that the central elements can be maintained to satisfy criticism. “It’s a disappointment there is a misinterpretation and a simplistic distortion of this, but if that is a public concern, then that is something we will look to resolve in a way that keeps the essential qualities,” Murdoch, 48, said in a telephone interview to the Associated Press.”
Whether or not there were legitimate problems with the design or not was never the issue. It was a matter of public concern, so they rightly changed the design. Public concern in this case is the mosque being located so close to ground zero. Here’s a great example of one group who did things the right way and another who isn’t.
Guess when the memorial will be dedicated? 9/11/11, the same day as the mosque planned their dedication.
LikeLike
Ed said, ” “Victory Temple?” What if the people who massacred your family carved their names on a mountainside just a few miles from the massacre site?
What if they carved their faces so they could be seen for miles?”
Yeah, I’m sure the fact that Mt. Rushmore is approximately 120 miles by road from the site is equivalent to the 600 ft. in NYC. Sure…
LikeLike
James said, “Notable American Christians, such as Rick Warren, have very close ties to leaders in Uganda, which is developing a policy to kill homosexuals.”
Why is that Rick Warren keeps showing up everywhere?!!! :-)
It would help if you got your facts straight James about Rick Warren’s “involvment” with Uganda leaders:
time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946921,00.html
Why won’t you guys ever answer me about the Archbishop of NY? Is he a bigot or not?
LikeLike
“Victory Temple?” What if the people who massacred your family carved their names on a mountainside just a few miles from the massacre site?
What if they carved their faces so they could be seen for miles?
http://motherjones.com/road-trip-blog/2010/08/wounded-knee-mount-rushmore
LikeLike
Nor is any “victory temple” for anyone else proposed anywhere else, either.
So, what exactly was your beef, again? You’re having nightmares, but don’t want to stop eating pepperoni pizza just before bed?
You raise a fuss about an imaginary problem. That’s just bizarre.
LikeLike
Why don’t you just answer Mr. Hanley’s question for yourself? You alleged that Christians don’t do atrocities.
I have alleged no such thing. And I don’t need to answer to anything; you and Nick have laid down this bizarre moral code that people are required to believe things that are different, are, in fact, identical. You’ve laid down the code that people are required to treat these different things as if they were exactly the same.
Having rejected the code, I need to answer to precisely zip. As in jack squat.
In fact, Ed, so far as I know, no such Christian “Victory Temple” is being proposed in the areas discussed by James. So…let’s stick to the subject at hand. You say nobody is allowed to discriminate under any circumstances, so are you going to start discriminating now?
LikeLike
Why don’t you just answer Mr. Hanley’s question for yourself?
You alleged that Christians don’t do atrocities. Hanley gives evidence to the contrary. Are you going to acknowledge that or not?
LikeLike
Sorry, “template”==”temple”.
Letting my livelihood & finger-muscle-memory do the typing for me.
LikeLike
How’s that for moral equivalence?
I don’t know, Mr. Hanley. Let’s ask our two resident authorities on moral equivalence; our two “let’s see if” guys.
How about it, Ed? Nick? Would you vigorously defend the right of Christians to express their religious beliefs freely, by building a “Victory Template” close by the sites of the atrocities to which Mr. Hanley refers?
In fact, I’ve been wondering about preachers being sued for refusing to conduct gay wedding ceremonies. Both of you would be in their corner as well, right? They’d be able to count on you in their hour of need?
LikeLike
Mr. Freeberg,
In Africa, Christians have killed as many as a thousand children accused of being witches, and the toll continues to mount as the violence is on-going.
Notable American Christians, such as Rick Warren, have very close ties to leaders in Uganda, which is developing a policy to kill homosexuals.
How’s that for moral equivalence? Or are the actions of these Christians somehow more justified than what the 9/11 attackers did?
LikeLike
Hm, would you Morgan and you Lower like to try to explain why we shouldn’t promote the right wing from being bigots to being outright fascists?
Nick,
I already called you out here:
Since Morgan and Lower want the Muslims in NYC to be sensitive about where they put their mosque, I’m sure Lower and Morgan will agree that…
Nick, you’ve been beginning a whole lot of posts this way. If you’re really looking for an answer out of me, you’re going to be frustrated until such time as Christians fly jet planes into buildings and burn thousands of people to death with ignited jet fuel. Moral equivalence is bad for your teeth & gums.
I’m just not buying into the idea that free people are obliged to treat everyone equally all the time, especially when one religion has been associated with a guerilla-warfare massacre in very recent times, and other religions have not been.
And if you’re trying this failed tactic well after you’ve specifically been called out on it, that looks more like a surrender than anything else, to me. It’s certainly an admission that you’re out of ammunition. What point are you trying to prove, here? You’ve already made up your mind I’m human garbage because I don’t agree with you, so what else are you trying to find out?
Since it’s so well established that you’re the one who has something to teach me, I’m curious: Was FDR a bigot and a racist, what with the internment of those Japanese-American citizens? How radical of a right-winger would you say he must have been?
LikeLike
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009010016
(the poll was taken down but the point remains)
Conservative radio station polls listeners on whether the U.S. should “register” Muslims in a “national database” during “a time of war”
September 01, 2010 12:32 pm ET by Ben Dimiero
During the seemingly never-ending conservative freak-out over the proposed Park51 community center, right-wing media have dismissed the idea that the right’s extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric has fueled “Islamophobia” throughout the country. As we’ve documented extensively, based on numerous hateful protests and vandalisms of mosques around the country, this is clearly not the case. Unfortunately, we can add another piece of evidence to the growing trend.
San Diego radio station KFMB, which features a lineup of conservative talk programming, is currently hosting the following poll on their homepage:
During a time of war, should we register as many practicing Muslims as we can find in a national database?
– No, it’s an invasion of privacy
– Yes, gun owners have to, why not Muslims?
(Though it’s never a great idea to place much stock in unscientific online polls, 63% of respondents have so far answered “Yes.”)
Among others, KFMB broadcasts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, and Dave Ramsey. Along with other major conservative media figures, Hannity, Beck, and Savage have worked hard to blur the lines between Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the moderate Muslims behind the planned center and the radical extremists that attacked the U.S. on 9-11. Based on the recent anti-Muslim rhetoric of these hosts, perhaps this poll doesn’t seem outwardly outlandish to regular listeners of this radio station.
For example, in just the past month, Beck has referred to the planned community center as the “9-11 mosque,” called it an “actual danger,” and suggested that it is an “Allah tells me to blow up America mosque.”
Sean Hannity has distorted Imam Rauf’s words to fearmonger about Rauf wanting to impose Sharia law on the U.S., and asked if the “real victims” of the push to build the Islamic center are those who died during the September 11 attacks.
For his part, Michael Savage announced that “they’re building a mosque at the site of one of their military victories.” Savage has a long history of anti-Muslim rhetoric, including suggesting in 2006 that lawmakers should institute an “outright ban on Muslim immigration” and on the “construction of mosques” in order to “save the United States.”
It’s worth asking KFMB’s hosts whether they are okay with being broadcast on a station that thinks it is open to debate whether or not “practicing Muslims” should have to register in a “national database.”
~~~~
Hm, would you Morgan and you Lower like to try to explain why we shouldn’t promote the right wing from being bigots to being outright fascists? Is political power worth tearing the country apart in a bout of insane racial/religious hatred? Does your party have so little to contribute to the country that this is the only way your party can gain power?
LikeLike
You can read more about Sharif El-Gamal here.
It’s a curious thing about The Left, in modern times. Whenever they rally behind a certain personality to express moral themes or to pray, someone who is to receive a title of nobility starting with “Conscience Of The”…it never seems to be someone you’d have hang out with your children if you have a whiff of sanity about you. Call it the “Kennedy Curse” I guess.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
LikeLike
The article is originally from the New Yorker but don’t have that url to give:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ny-magazine-how-nyc-mosque-site-was-c
This was a pretty interesting, rational piece in New York magazine about how the site was chosen for the controversial downtown mosque. (The rational part, of course, doesn’t apply to their comments section.) It’s long, but enlightening, and I wish more people would read it:
Why stir up all those ghosts, revisit the horror of those sad days? Was this the best way for the Muslim-American community to stitch itself into the grand mosaic of the city, to demonstrate that the followers of Islam were regulation Jills and Joes like the next caterwauling Yankee fan? I mean, how clueless, how tone-deaf could you be?
When I expressed this sentiment to Sharif El-Gamal, the owner of 45–51 Park Place, a nicely turned out, urbane 37-year-old real-estate man who has been buying and selling buildings in Manhattan for the past dozen years, he shook his head with a barely restrained impatience.
“Listen,” said El-Gamal, “do you have any clue how the Manhattan real-estate market works, what is involved? People seem to think that we picked that building to make some kind of point. But that is simply insane. This is New York; no matter who you are, you just don’t choose a building, move in, and take over. Do you know how many places I looked at? I looked at Chambers Street. I looked at Vesey Street, Broadway, Greenwich Street, Warren Street, Murray Street. Maybe half a dozen more, I can’t even remember now. It was only after all that that Park Place came up. Even then, it was the most grueling negotiation of my life. So many times I told myself, Wow, this just isn’t worth it. One minute the deal was on, eight months later it was off. The whole thing almost drove me nuts.”
But didn’t he think twice before buying a building so close to ground zero? Didn’t he suspect that he was putting himself at the center of a hornets’ nest?
“No,” said El-Gamal, who was born at Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn and, after some world travels in the company of his father, a Chemical Bank executive, attended New Hyde Park High School in Nassau County. “It never entered my mind,” he said. “Not for a second.”
The story of how he came to 45–51 Park Place began on 9/11, Sharif El-Gamal said. “I was eating in a diner at 61st and Second Avenue when I heard about the planes, and I just started going down there. Everyone was going the other way, but I kept walking. Someone had attacked my country, my city. All I wanted to do was to see if I could help. I was down there for two days. I saw things I couldn’t believe. I wound up in the hospital because the dust affected my eyes. It was after that, I just felt like praying. We weren’t a religious family; a couple of holy days, that was it. I worked downtown, so I started going to a mosque on Warren Street. After a while I stopped in at the Masjid al-Farah on West Broadway, where I met Imam Feisal for the first time. I knew he had been there for a long time, twenty years or more, but I never heard him speak. His sermons were what I was looking for, beautiful, sincere, but American. I thought, finally, an American Imam, someone who talks to me as an American. But the place was so small. It had a 70-person capacity. You could hardly get in. After the Jumu’ah, which is what we call Friday prayers, I went up to Imam Feisal and told him how much I enjoyed his sermon and that it was too bad only 70 people could hear it at a time. He just smiled and thanked me.
LikeLike
Ed said, “My point is simply that Osama bin Laden does not represent nor speak for all of Islam, not even all the Wasabis. You attribute his views to the Sufis.”
That’s incorrect. I do not.
LikeLike
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2010/07/religious_freedom-_for_all.html
To be balanced, here is an article from a pastor that I can respect. His arguments are reasonable, the dialogue is respectful, and the conclusions are morally based. I may not agree with the mosque being built right by Ground Zero because of the “SHOULD facotor” connected with showing respect to 9/11, but this pastor makes a good case from a Conservative Evangelical perspective that goes far beyond anything said here on this blog. What he says in this article, I agree should be a Christian’s response to Islam in general, even if you do or do not agree with the mosque built next to Ground Zero.
If there is to be a mosque at ground zero, it should be there for the reasons that this pastor suggests, not because of the diatribe of insults to “shove it” and “shut up” and name calling as presented here on this blog. Nic especially could take a few notes from this pastor’s rhetoric and how to pursuade your opponents using respectful dialogue.
I hope it is not built because it will only further the rift between the left and right and between Christians and Islam, which is an unfortunate reality. Both sides are to be blamed.
One thing that I learned as a pastor is that someone’s perception is almost if not as important as what is true. You can be right and be wrong at the exact same time. When what I can do becomes more important than people, I’ve crossed the line. You can make the case for what you CAN do, but sometimes you have to make concessions because of how something is perceived. For example, I bought some gospel tracts for our church that featured a picture of Obama as the president on a trillion dollar bill and the back offers the “trillion dollar question – where will you go when you die.” I thought it was eye catchy and clever, and said nothing political at all, but people in my community were offended by the tract. After hearing their side of the issue, I understood how it could be offensive, offered an appology, printed a retraction, and pulled the tracts. Why? Well, I could have told our community to “shut it” and that I had the consitutional right to print and distribute that literature, but what good would that have done for communicating love to my community? It would have been elevating my rights above people. Even though I wasn’t personally offended by the literature, and I had a right to distribute them, I was sensitive to the perception of those who were offended. Whether or not they were right to be offended or not was irrelevant.
I believe that the mosque is in a similar situation. Whether or not they have the right to be there is not the issue, and never has been the issue as practically everyone agrees that they have the right to be there. But a vast majority of people perceive this mosque to be an afront to 9/11. Instead of responding in grace and peace, these Muslims are disrespecting others. To that I say bad form.
In some senses though, I guess it is a mistake to expect people who are not Christians to behave like Christians (both on the right and the left).
LikeLike
And it would be viciously unfair to associate modern Japanese culture with the attack on Pearl Harbor.
But if a family somewhere says, we lost a lot of grand-uncles in that attack and so we do not allow our children to play with Pokemon toys…I’ll not begrudge them for that. I won’t hand them a snotty lecture about what bigots they are, I won’t try to change their minds. I’ll permit them their personal opinions and their dignity. Chalk it up as one of the many un-tallied human costs of war.
Same goes for a family that renounced its Catholic faith because a relative was molested. At some point, decent people stop passing judgment on others for the opinions they hold. Mature people say “I may not agree with that, and I may have some personal principles that are opposed to it, but there is an issue that is bigger than me” and they let things lie.
Immature people, on the other hand, persist in this 1970’s fad of “ending discrimination everywhere” and they ultimately become the very form of dogmatic intolerance and rigid judgmentalism they seek to banish.
LikeLike
No, I’m not joking. Joe, you have more religious authority than Osama bin Laden. Can I attribute your views to all Baptists? All Christians?
If not, why should I attribute the views of a terrorist to any faith? My point is simply that Osama bin Laden does not represent nor speak for all of Islam, not even all the Wasabis. You attribute his views to the Sufis.
That makes as much sense as saying Glenn Beck speaks for the Pope and Richard Land on theological issues. Willing to let him do it?
I’m not.
LikeLike
Ed said, “But since no religion blew up the Twin Towers, why do you pick one sect that had nothing to do with it over the Baptists?”
You’re joking right? Is that why the terrorists cried “Allah Akbar?” Al Qaeda is a radical Islamic organization. In 1998 Bin Laden issued a “fatwa” (religious ruling) calling for a jihad against both Christians and Jews.
“The attack was not a holy war…”
From dictionary.com: “Jihad: a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.”
One of the main reasons Al Qaeda is angry over the infidel’s (US) presence in near the “holy city” of Mecca because of our troops in Saudi Arabia.
Everything these guys do is because of their faith in Allah and Islam. Unlike a lot of people who claim Christianity, these guys actually believe that their faith is true, not just a matter of culture. They actually believe they are carrying out the will of their god. To say 9/11 wasn’t a religious attack and that it wasn’t a holy war either makes it plain that you don’t know how to do research or that you are intentionally trying to cover up facts in order to prove your point. Perhaps there is a third option, but it certainly isn’t that you’re right about this not being a holy war by a religion.
The Sufi are Islamic – they pray to the same god as Bin Laden at the same time each day, facing the same direction. There are more similarities between Al Qaeda and the Sufi religion than there would be between Ed and I, or Nic and I, and we’re all considered “Christian” by outsiders and all consider ourselves “Christian.”
Am I blaming them for anything? Not at all. While they are highly political, and while they do want to see Sharia law, they did not commit any of these atrocities. The reason they should move the mosque has to do with deference to the nation because of those who they would name as “brothers” who have carried out these attacks in the name of the same god they pray to.
By the way, on another front, I wanted to point out to Nic that 9/11 wasn’t just a NY tragedy, or a tragedy that just directly belongs to the victim’s families – it belongs to all of the US. If you disagree, then wouldn’t you also say that only victim’s families of Pearl Harbor should have been allowed to say what happened to Japan? It was a national tragedy…but 9/11 was worse – more deaths, and it was a civilian target.
LikeLike
Morgan said:
But not only was that not the first step of this group, they never said that. They’ve been open and forthcoming — the permitting process is required to be public, by law, and it has been.
This became controversial only as Republican ratings started to sink in the polls.
The entire controversy is made up, as is the charge you make above.
LikeLike
There were zero Baptists involved in the attacks on the WTC, and zero Sufis. Baptists are, therefore, just as culpable as the Sufis. And just as culpable as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why don’t you go after them, too?
The attack was not a holy war, not any more than Timothy McVeigh’s white supremacy-fueled attack on the federal government was a holy war.
The unfair indictment of these New Yorkers who suffered through the attacks concerns me.
LikeLike
Baptists are just as culpable…
No, they aren’t.
LikeLike
But since no religion blew up the Twin Towers, why do you pick one sect that had nothing to do with it over the Baptists? Baptists are just as culpable as the Sufis.
LikeLike
Nic said of Morgan, “You are a scared little fascist bigot.”
Nice to see the thread progressing well in reasonable and profitable dialogue since I was on here a few days ago.
LikeLike
foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183704,00.html
So…I’m sure Ed and Nic will agree that there is bigotry against Baptists and that their rhetoric here is only help incite more violence against peace loving Baptists and that they will stop their bigotry here on this thread in order to be consistent.
In answer to the entire thread’s purpose – my answer would be that I would be happy to see lower Mahattan become a religious free zone if all religions had blown up the Twin Towers. You’re mad at me for saying that moderate Islam should be sensitive to the attacks on 9/11 carried out by an extremist sect, and your answer is to ban ALL religion from ALL of lower Manhattan? You’re going to strap ALL religious organizations with 9/11? This is better? Seriously, I’d rather see a mosque there than see this happen.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
. . .yours is the side that’s surrendering. Or appeasing, at the ve
No, Morgan, yours is the side that is surrendering…or appeasing at the very least. See, one of the things the terrorists wanted to do was to convince the people of the United States that this is a war against the entirety of Islam. And there you sit…giving them what they want. There you sit willing to throw out the ideals of this country and the US Constitution of this country just because you are a scared little boy who **** his pants on 9-11.
You are a scared little fascist bigot.
LikeLike
And most of those polled, wherever it’s done.
Not often the majority is wise enough to see my side of things. On this particular question, you’re poorly served by your time-honored tactic of “You’re the only guy with the problem.” It just doesn’t fit here.
The very idea that a Fellowship Center could be constructed as an offering of peace…and step 1 is to say “f*ck off the lot of you, we have a right to build it whether you like it or not” — a fair, capable mind just isn’t going to fall for it. It doesn’t stand up to reason.
LikeLike
No, no, you’re the one who has pronounced it a Moslem victory. You have a First Amendment Right to surrender if you choose — but no one advocating the center has declared victory on behalf of Islam.
Only you.
LikeLike
You can call anyone you like anything you like. I thought you were supposed to be the champion of the First Amendment?
And I thought you were the one telling Imam Rauf to go ahead and build? So that’s a little bit of a problem; yours is the side that’s surrendering. Or appeasing, at the very least.
It really all comes down to this: After the 9/11 attacks, the first thing America dropped on Afghanistan was food. The second thing was money. So there really isn’t any reason to think the U.S. is declaring a holy war against Islam; anybody who’d like to think that, well, they just like to think that.
Hey here’s an awesome idea. How about move the opening date of the Mosque to the start of Ramadan, 8/1/2011, rather than the tenth anniversary of the attacks that are supposed to be unrelated to its purpose? Maybe at least make a dent in that list of reasons to think it’s a victory monument?
You have to admit, Ed ol’ boy, the arguing tactic of “just ridicule anybody who comes to a conclusion my side doesn’t happen to like” loses its punch after awhile.
LikeLike
I wondered why Morgan uses the inflammatory sobriquet “Victory Mosque” for the Islamic cultural center proposed for lower Manhattan; he said:
I suppose, if you wish to concede victory, you may. You won’t mind, then, if we call you Surrender Monkey, will you?
LikeLike
Morgan, why do you insist on calling it “the Victory Mosque?”
It fits better than anything else. Islam is perceived by some to be a religion of conquest; whether or not it predominantly is that way in 2010, it certainly is infected with zealots who believe that’s what it is all about. It would be silly to deny this.
So the central question that comes up with regard to this mosque, is — is it being put there for the benefit of moderates in the religion of Islam, or for the zealots? Well logically, the proposition that it is an extension of an olive branch, put there to foster feelings of good will and commonality, runs into all sorts of problems. The location is a big problem that has been rehashed repeatedly. This opening date of 9/11/11 is yet another such problem. Altogether, the evidence that the mosque is designed & constructed to appeal to a whacko contingent, is rather strong IMO. The evidence that it is designed and constructed to appeal to a more civilized and peace-loving contingent, on the other hand, is…
Well, let’s see. Here’s the complete list.
1. A bunch of people are ready to make fun of me if I don’t accept without reservation the proposition that it is a peaceful symbol.
2. Um…er…ah…
That’s it. That’s all the evidence we have that the mosque is all about healing, fellowship, ending hostilities.
Besides, you get grumpy if people call it a Ground Zero mosque because there are a couple of blocks separating it from the actual crater, on which it isn’t physically possible to build anything.
Since Morgan and Lower want the Muslims in NYC to be sensitive about where they put their mosque, I’m sure Lower and Morgan will agree that…
Nick, you’ve been beginning a whole lot of posts this way. If you’re really looking for an answer out of me, you’re going to be frustrated until such time as Christians fly jet planes into buildings and burn thousands of people to death with ignited jet fuel.
Moral equivalence is bad for your teeth & gums.
LikeLike
He insists on calling it that, Ed, because he drank the koolaid and bought into the paranoid blatherings on Fox News. Because after all…everything they say is true. They would never say anything without having the facts to back the claims up……
Btw, Morgan, the Imam of the proposed mosque condemned the 9-11 attacks. It’s time for you to realize exactly how stupid and hateful you’re sounding.
LikeLike
Since Morgan and Lower want the Muslims in NYC to be sensitive about where they put their mosque, I’m sure Lower and Morgan will agree that any churches built in Murfreesboro, TN, will now have to be sensitive about where they are built. After all, an act of violence was committed against the construction site of a planned mosque there this weekend. And I’m sure that Lower and MOrgan will agree that the anti-mosque array in NYC will have to take responsibility for what they’re causing, yes?
Feds investigate fire at site of future Tennessee mosque
A fire at the future site of a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, is under investigation but “you can reasonably make the assumption” that it was arson, an FBI spokesman told CNN Sunday.
“The evidence is being analyzed to see what the origin of the fire was,” Keith Moses, an assistant special agent with the FBI in Nashville, told CNN Sunday. “We have to follow the facts.”
The fire, which struck early Saturday morning at the future site of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, is under investigation by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office.
The fire consumed an earth mover and damaged three other vehicles, according to Camie Ayash, a spokesperson for the mosque. Ayash said that the Mufreesboro Fire Department told her that the vehicles had been doused with an accelerant.
Accelerants are substances that help start or spread fires.
A call to the Mufreesboro Fire Department on Sunday evening was not answered.
“It really put fear into the community,” Ayash said.
“Our children are heartbroken,” she said. “When we broke ground a few weeks ago, they could see the new Islamic center as something that was tangible, something that was going to happen.”
“Now someone had so much hatred to rip the joy out of their hearts,” she said.
The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has existed in the Murfreesboro area for over a decade, according to its website, and currently meets about a mile from the site of the future mosque.
LikeLike
Morgan, why do you insist on calling it “the Victory Mosque?” Are you really that much of a surrender monkey?
LikeLike
Yes there are other mosques. And they’re not getting trouble..yet. But that’s the point, it actually shoots down your own argument too.
Actually, it doesn’t.
You say that a mosque near the WTC site dishonors the victims of 9-11. And its an example of “Islam triumphalism.” Well the fact that there are other mosques near there that you’re not bothered with also proves that your umbrage at this new one is fake.
Actually, no, it doesn’t prove any such thing.
This proposed one is designed to replace one of those already near there that has become too small. In other words you are being played so the Republican party can scare the people of this country into voting for them.
That wouldn’t be an effective plan, would it?
Oh dear, they’ve built the Victory Mosque. Vote Republican! And they’ll…uh…er…
No, the most persuasive case you can make for voting Republican, is looking at democrat policies and the wreckage that results. Beside that, the mosque issue is meaningless. Unless you’re talking about Obama’s wretched performance in commenting on it, convincing people He’s a bad leader?
Sorry old chap. That’s all on Him.
They don’t care how much what they’re doing tears the country apart…as long as they gain power.
Actually, it’s Imam Rauf tearing the country apart as well as alienating his own religion. It would make sense for you to vent some rage in that direction. Which, of course, probably means you won’t do it.
You are still being played…you are still being taken as a sucker by your own political side.
Actually, pretty much every registered Republican I know, is worried about that very thing. The issue that really drives them to the polls has nothing to do with Mosques, it has to do with the government becoming too centralized, cumbersome, work-ethic-challenged, exorbitant and imperious.
I think they’re failing to follow your instructions, Nick, because 1) you’re a snot, and 2) it would involve slavishly incorporating someone else’s viewpoint that a bunch of bereaved parents, children, wives & husband who live in New York, and have quite legitimate grievances, must be bigots and racists. They’re not willing to do that. I’m not willing to do that either. You hate as much as you want, but you go down that road alone.
Unfortuantely [sic] for you, it doesn’t prove that this isn’t fear and hatred of Muslims.
Yeah, it pretty much does prove that.
Because you’re still blithely ignoring that there are mosques elsewhere around the country also being protested, a Muslim cabbie was stabbed…
…by a mosque supporter…
…a mosque in california was attacked and so on. Your side is still ginning up hatred and fear of Muslims, whether you want to be honest enough to admit it or not. Your side is still engaging in bigotry…its still creating bigotry.
Then you must defeat us and banish us somewhere.
Wow, if you “inclusive” and “tolerant” liberals were any more inclusive and tolerant, you’d be carving people up into pieces with knives. It’s all “our side” this and “your side” that and “you guys are creating bigotry”…all reasons to shut down the opposition. How’s that perfect society that’s going to work for everyone going, Nick? You got enough people excluded that you can start building it?
There must be a rule somewhere, that you always have to say the exact opposite of what you mean.
Hey Nick, by the way here’s another hater of Muslims who’s creating bigotry. You’d better hurry up and silence her. This woman must really hate Muslims!
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
And there are other mosques in the area, not meeting any similar resistance. There goes that whole argument, Ed. I know you’re gonna miss it, but out it goes.
Yes there are other mosques. And they’re not getting trouble..yet. But that’s the point, it actually shoots down your own argument too. You say that a mosque near the WTC site dishonors the victims of 9-11. And its an example of “Islam triumphalism.” Well the fact that there are other mosques near there that you’re not bothered with also proves that your umbrage at this new one is fake. This proposed one is designed to replace one of those already near there that has become too small. In other words you are being played so the Republican party can scare the people of this country into voting for them. They don’t care how much what they’re doing tears the country apart…as long as they gain power. You are still being played…you are still being taken as a sucker by your own political side.
Unfortuantely for you, it doesn’t prove that this isn’t fear and hatred of Muslims. Because you’re still blithely ignoring that there are mosques elsewhere around the country also being protested, a Muslim cabbie was stabbed, a mosque in california was attacked and so on. Your side is still ginning up hatred and fear of Muslims, whether you want to be honest enough to admit it or not. Your side is still engaging in bigotry…its still creating bigotry.
LikeLike
Oh, Morgan, I never said you didn’t have the right to your opinion nor did I say you don’t have the right to voice it.
All i said was that your opinion is wrong and that your voicing it in the manner you do is stupid. Everyone has a right to their opinion…but that doesn’t mean all opinions are right.
If your side was really so interested in moving that mosque your side would have tried sitting down with the people building it quietly and worked out an arrangement. But no…your side went straight for the protest. why? Because what your side is after is to gin up fear and hatred of muslims in a craven attempt to win the next election by scaring the white people of this country. And why? Because your political party has nothing to offer the country. It has no plans, it doesn’t know how to get us out of the problems this country has. All it wants is to scare the white middle class and poor and to give the rich and powerful ever more money and ever more power.
Your party is bankrupt of ideas and now it’s bankrupting its morality. And for what? to divide and tear apart the country by fear.
Your side isn’t being reasonable at all despite your delusion to the contrary.
I suggest you read this:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/101750998.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU
US Muslim leaders: Fallout from mosque furor will hurt integration, alienate young US Muslims
By RACHEL ZOLL , Associated Press
Last update: August 29, 2010 – 12:26 PM
NEW YORK – Adnan Zulfiqar, a graduate student, former U.S. Senate aide and American-born son of Pakistani immigrants, will soon give the first khutbah, or sermon, of the fall semester at the University of Pennsylvania. His topic has presented itself in the daily headlines and blog posts over the disputed mosque near ground zero.
What else could he choose, he says, after a summer remembered not for its reasoned debate, but for epithets, smears, even violence?
As he writes, Zulfiqar frets over the potential fallout and what he and other Muslim leaders can do about it. Will young Muslims conclude they are second-class citizens in the U.S. now and always?
“They’re already struggling to balance, `I’m American, I’m Muslim,’ and their ethnic heritage. It’s very disconcerting,” said Zulfiqar, 32, who worked for former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat, and now serves Penn’s campus ministry. “A controversy like this can make them radical or become more conservative in how they look at things or how they fit into the American picture.”
LikeLike
And there are other mosques in the area, not meeting any similar resistance. There goes that whole argument, Ed. I know you’re gonna miss it, but out it goes.
LikeLike
Which brings us back to your claims that all Moslems should bear the blame for the acts of al Quaeda, Morgan. Just as you refuse to take the blame for Ku Klux Klan lynchings, it is unfair and wrong for you to insist any Muslim must avoid religious worship in order to atone for the WTC.
LikeLike
Yes. And they don’t limit the rights or powers of The People. Particularly the right to form whatever opinions we want, and speak them out loud. All of us.
Right, Ed?
LikeLike
Specifically, those amendments help limit government’s authority to stop or interfere with the construction of Cordoba House.
You realize this, right, Morgan?
LikeLike
Lower, howdy!
Actually, Jesus’ relationship with the Pharisees was not as bad as some make out. In fact, some of them became His followers after his death. And two spoke up in His defense before. I do not mean to imply Jesus got along swimmingly with the Pharisees. On the contrary. But I believe the Sadducees and scribes were even more bitter enemies of the Savior.
All in all, it was not their “religion” or the Mosaic law Jesus objected to. Indeed, he said he came to be the fulfillment of the law and not to abolish it. (He did this by summing it all up in two commandments.)
What Jesus was relentlessly vitriolic about (and rightly so) was the rank hypocrisy of the Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes. He was particularly infused with rage over their constant practice of putting heavy burdens on people, discouraging them from coming to God. Essentially, the religious rulers of the day had a disastrous tendency to rob ordinary people of their joy in trying to follow God. It’s rather like the Baptist preacher who says you must cut your hair short to be a good Christian…like the Catholic priest who tells a sincere parishioner she might be punished for eating (and enjoying) a hot dog on Friday, during Lent.
What Jesus saw — He of course had the advantage of actually seeing into the hearts of people — was the stark ugliness and darkness in the hearts of those who were placing heavy burdens on others. The Pharisees had the right haircuts, ate the right foods at the right times and did just about everything the law said they were supposed to. Except love. And this, to Jesus, was intolerable. So much so that he called them whitewashed tombs, full of the bones of death and decay. (Nothing could be more insulting to a faithful Jew of that day.) They were unclean inside.
So perhaps Nick and I both have some work to do when it comes to loving our enemies and being charitable in our hearts, without compromising our beliefs. Perhaps you and Morgan do, too. I honestly can’t say. I can say there is one thing that separates those of us (left and right) fulminating here in the bathtub with the religious leaders of today.
They have power. We do not. Not much, anyway. They can motivate tens of millions of people. They can raise billions of dollars. They have tens of millions of adherants hanging on their every word. Now we have to ask two questions about the American religious leaders of our time. Are these American religious leaders left wing or right wing? Well, a few like Jack Spong, Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo do have a small following on the left. What are they telling (or asking) their followers to do?
On the right, religious leaders include Glen Beck (so he himself asserts), James Dobson, Pat Robertson, John Haggee, Rod Parsley, Gary North, Jack Van Impe, Hal Lindsey, Tim and Bev LaHaye, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, Phyllis Schlafly, Don Wildmon…I could go on and on. (I left off Rush because he seems to be relentlessly secular.) So…what are THESE religious leaders telling their followers to do?
LikeLike
Morgan,
Nic hates hate! He HATES hate with a passion!
Oh, and he is intollerant about intollerance.
That’s like saying you’re absolutely sure there are no asbolutes. :-)
More later on answering this question, Ed.
Oh, and Nic, you still didn’t say if the Archbishop was a bigot nor offer an explanation as to why you choose why he gets a pass and I don’t. Should I accuse you of religious bigotry because you’re giving a Catholic a free pass and an Evangelical Christian a diatribe of names?
The name “bigot” doesn’t bother me too much coming from you since Jesus was also religious bigot – he did not tolerate the Pharisees religion and was an extremist by insisting that He Himself was the only path to God. Man, start looking at the words that God uses and let the labels fly (see Richard Dawkins who will provide plenty)!
LikeLike
I’m a “snot” to people who whine about “tolerance” when they think they’re being put upon but they’re the ones actually trying to be intolerant. I’m a “snot” to people who view others with hate, fear and want to treat them as second class citizens. I’m a “snot” to those who surrenedered to the terrorists on 9-11, gave them exactly what they wanted and are now bent on proving the terrorists right..that this is a war of the United States versus the entirety of Islam.
You, Lower and the others are being ignorant bigots. Why should I play kid gloves with you? Why should I play nice if you’re not willing to? Sorry, you’re not being civil. Civil doesn’t include denying other peoples rights, Morgan. You want to say you’re civil? Then pray…tell me why didn’t your side try negotiating instead of trying to force the muslims to do what you want? If your side was “civil” your side would have tried talking instead of ginning up hatred of muslims across the country. But no..it’s resorted to shouting, paranoia, fear, hatred and now…violence.
And as for your other claim. Tell me, Morgan, how would you have “I’m ready to treat the denominations unequally.” if not through the government? Not like the “people” can deny those muslims the right to build, it has to be the government. Or are you trying to justify violence against muslims? Because that is the only way the “people” have to do any such thing without involving the government.
But fine…if you want an answer that doesn’t include the US Constitution, lets go with Jesus. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” You do remember that one right? You say you would be fine with treating other denominations unequally? So that means we get to treat yours unequally right? We, the people, get to screw your denomination over right?
Sorry, your drek about my not behaving properly is rather like the Nazi’s when they promised peace. no matter how civil they might have been at the negotiating table, they still needed to be opposed. You may wrap your drek up in civiler terms then I do, Morgan, but what you want is not civil. It’s not tolerant. It’s not even Christian nor is it moral or just. Sorry, no matter how you wrap it, what you want is wrong. And I am not going to pretend it is otherwise just so your feelings don’t get hurt. Because frankly I don’t give a damn about your feelings. To me you’re an ignorant immoral ******* and I’m not going to sugarcoat it. Half the reason you jokers still are around and still have power is because you’re not stood up to.
So spare me your lecture, Morgan, its worthless. Sorry, you don’t get to talk about civility when your side of this argument is resorting to hatred, fear and violence. Your side is so pathetic that it can’t even take responsibility for itself. It plays this stupid “blame the victims” game like a guy saying a woman deserves to be raped because “she asked for it.” What? Muslims have to die before you figure out how uncivil your side is being?
The next time your stupid enough to say that we should be unfair to other denominations…do bother to remember that in this country…you’re a member of a minority denomination. What you want done to others would be done to yours so be more careful what you stupidly ask for.
Pretend you’re being civil if you want but you’re being about as civil as someone who points a gun at someone and says politely “Give me your money.”
Don’t try saying that other denominations should surrender their equality unless you’re willing to give up your own. Better mind the price you pay.
LikeLike
One other thing…
Please drop the hate. You’re supposed to be representing the tolerant side. As LL has already pointed out to you, your opposition has been more civil than you have.
Overall, frankly, you’ve just been a snot. Now think on that: Your vision is a kinder, gentler society, and acting as representative of that vision, you’re a snot.
Thinking neutral persons can’t help but wonder what in the world the point is. And I don’t think you have an answer.
LikeLike
Nick,
You realize the U.S. Constitution, specifically the parts of it you cite, limit the actions of the Government and not The People. You realize this, right? You’ve said much to suggest a rather staggering ignorance in this area on your part.
Which in turn would have a diminishing effect on whatever it is you’re trying to say. Right?
LikeLike
Oh and so much for you being a reasonable person, Morgan.
Congratulations, little one, you just lost the mosque debate. now shut up and go away. The real adults in this country don’t need little children like you continuing to **** up the country.
LikeLike
You mean besides that it’s a massive violation of the US Constitution? Specifically the 1st and 14th Admendments, Morgan.
Or are you ready to admit that conservatives don’t give a damn about the US Constitution, don’t give a damn about people other then themselves and secretly hate what the United States stands for?
LikeLike
Nick, Nick, Nick…..haven’t you ever heard of Just Us Sunday?
LikeLike
I’m ready to treat the denominations unequally. That’s quite alright, given the circumstances. Unless someone can give me a good reason why it isn’t?
LikeLike
Gee, wonder if Lower and Morgan would agree to that there be no more houses of worship built within, say, a 5 block radius of the WTC of any faith.
Are you two willing to agree to that compromise in order to keep that mosque from being built? Are you willing to give something up? You both say you’re being reasonable. Lets see it.
LikeLike
St. Paul’s Chapel won’t be leaving any time soon, and I’m more than a little disappointed in CFI, although, there are fundies in every group. Or, is this a Poe from CFI?
LikeLike